Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Guy Montag]

I don't see the big problem. The vast majority of the world's people eat meat. Its something we have evolved to do. Cats eat meat, and they don't care what sort it is either.

Why the hell is it horrible for people to eat cats, but its ok to eat fish, cattle or insects or any other living creature?

Double standards for "cuteness"? thats not a very logical answer either.

There is no tremendous waste for using animal meat for food. Animals can graze on soil that isn't suitable for farming. What would otherwise be a arid wasteland can be used to graze goats or sheep for food.

Animals are fed stuff people cannot eat. But we can eat them.

Anyways, if people in Peru want to eat cats, who cares?

[Jude]

If you're insulted by the comparison because of racial differences then in human context you'd be a racist, I see that to be a fitting description in this case as well.

Wait. Eating animals makes me racist?

[McDoomhammer]

On the one hand, I rather dislike when people get up in arms about how dogs and cats are treated in other parts of the world.  Don't get me wrong, I dearly love my cat, but different cultures have different values and practices and I don't see the point in trying to hold them to ours so long as no-one tries to eat Feta (said kitteh's name).  Cats, dogs and horses, while useful animals, are not somehow more specialler than pigs, sheep and horses.  Also, not everyone has the luxury of being able to turn down food, regardless of source.  And it's not like the Hindus complain about us eating cow.

On the other hand, that PETA statement seems to be advocating universal vegetarianism, so it's not exactly a balanced counter-argument.

[E-mouse]

Beside, using meat for basic nutrition is very inefficient and creates a great deal of problems in todays world.

The protein requirements of the human brain disagree. It's unrealistic to get adequate proteins from sources other than animals, and I'm not sure nuts have the full variety or appropriate ratios needed.

Of course, once we can make protein sources without the animal with efficiency superior to the current setup, I'll be all over it. Until then? We're just not made for it. Treat 'em well and get cracking on the loopholes.

[Earthquake Damage]

If you're insulted by the comparison because of racial differences then in human context you'd be a racist, I see that to be a fitting description in this case as well.

Someone needs to learn what "race" means.

[Cthulhu]

I don't eat meat, haven't since I was like 6, and I'm completely fine.

[shadow_archmagi]

meat is meat

just because an animal is "cutter" than another animals does not disqualify it

Hey, I'm not going to mess with something that is cutter than everything else. Have you SEEN those claws?

[numerobis]

It's unrealistic to get adequate proteins from sources other than animals, and I'm not sure nuts have the full variety or appropriate ratios needed

Pulses are fairly high in protein; mix with grains and you get complete protein.  Soy and peanuts are complete proteins on their own.  It *is* hard to get both low glycemic index and enough protein.  For that, you need kittens.

[Creamcorn]

I once heard that human vegans shit twice as much as omnivorous, than again it would make sense for someone to shit more than two times the normal amount of poop if they eat a more varied palette of food. Than again what is normal?

As far as the topic goes. I'm not so sure of context of the topic; a joke or serious buisness?

So to save time, yeah I'd eat cat, but just a sustinance. Though when you cage your animals next to the butchers shop aren't you just treating them like live stock, than again that's DF, so it has no use in the real world, for the most part.

[Carcer]

Eating soy isn't such a great idea. Some of the enzymes in it imitate estrogen, causing breast cancer in women and other nasty problems with men.

[Pilsu]

I find any act of violence against a conscious being to be a deplorable act of malice

I don't think you know what malice means

I don't really see a problem with that. If they don't exist then there would be no problem to begin with. In fact, I dare say that PETA would welcome such a reality, as the multitude and high numbers of livestock animals would present a serious problem when meat consumption would cease.

Yes, if they were all dead they wouldn't suffer. Technically true but I'm going to have to question whether dying of cold, disease and predators is a better fate

I find that to be a rather fitting comparison. In fact I think the Jews in concentration camps are even a rather soft comparison, as the conditions and killing methods for animals in captivity tend to be much worse than that.

Yeah, cows are being systematically physically and mentally tortured and slaughtered with purposefully painful poison gas. Oh wait, that was the humans, the cows are enduring much worse! Funny how they still greet me with curiosity when I walk by instead of trying to skewer me or fleeing


Judging from the neurological damage you need to increase your B12 intake. You know, the stuff you must eat meat for. Or pills if you happen to have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth

[Vaftrudner]

The protein requirements of the human brain disagree. It's unrealistic to get adequate proteins from sources other than animals, and I'm not sure nuts have the full variety or appropriate ratios needed.

Well, you have a point. I guess that you're simply better informed than The US Department of Agriculture and NASA.

There is no tremendous waste for using animal meat for food. Animals can graze on soil that isn't suitable for farming. What would otherwise be a arid wasteland can be used to graze goats or sheep for food.

Animals are fed stuff people cannot eat. But we can eat them.

In theory, yes, but actual figures state that in the US, animals raised for slaughter consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain. Once again, from The US Department of Agriculture. According to some ecologists, that could feed 800 million people. Although I would take that with a grain of salt, as when listening to only one source, it tends to be biased.

Personally, I stopped eating meat because it's not necessary for my body, I love animals and don't like the idea that they're being hurt, and when thinking about the argument "Humans have always eaten meat! It's natural!", I thought about other things that are not natural. Like, you know, living in houses with heating, transmitting information in electromagnetic waves, communicating with someone thousands of miles away, etc. I'm fine with those things so I'm down with the soy. I'm not saying that every animal in the meat industry is hurt, and I'm not even claiming that there is an absolute definition of pain, because there isn't, but the possibility (and there are loads of indications) of animals suffering on a massive scale for something as meaningless as a tasty snack is absurd to me.

I don't want to disrespect anyone's point of view, and I'm not trying to force my views on anyone. I'm just explaining one point of view and trying to do my bit to kill the myth that humans need meat, when there is proof that we don't.

Edit:

Judging from the neurological damage you need to increase your B12 intake. You know, the stuff you must eat meat for. Or pills if you happen to have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth

Milk contains enough B12 to see you through the day. Milk is not meat to me, although some vegans would disagree. B12 does exist as an additive in several products for vegans, but I don't know about the silver spoon bit. In Europe, where I live, these are not particularly expensive.

[Toady One]

I'd appreciate it if people would stop making personal attacks in this thread.

[McDoomhammer]

In the hopes of steering somewhat away from the relative merits of meat-free diets, I wonder if anyone has considered the real-world implications to ending widespread meat consumption in the western world?  I'd think that if there were no more demand for meat, a lot of farms would suddenly go out of business.  True, there are eggs, meat and wool, but if every animal too old or the wrong gender to produce those ceased being an asset and became a liability in one stroke?  Suddenly thousands of farms have the choice between going out of business or destroying those animals.  Since we're assuming for the purposes of the discussion that the latter is abhorrent (if the law gives them a choice), what happens to the animals then?  I doubt charities and suchlike will be able to deal with more than a small fraction.  If there was enough money you could ship them off to third-world countries, but let's face it, there they would be eaten or what's the point?  And failing all that, just being left to wander?  Domesticated animals could not live that way.  Some might eke out an existence but vast numbers would die from predators, disease, exposure and general inability to support themselves. 

Frankly, in most cases, a farm is the better option for the animals.  Unless you (the non-specific, world-in-general "you") possess the ability to photosynthesise or are a special kind of bacteria found near volcanic vents deep beneath the oceans, it's a fact of life that your survival depends on consuming other living things.  I hate to throw around the word 'natural' in a debate because it's so subjective and usually means "the way I think things should be", but in this case I think it's justified to say that death, particularly dying to feed another, is a natural part of life and not, in and of itself, a bad thing.  Circle of Life, and all that.  So I can't find anything wrong with providing animals with food, shelter and care over the course of their lives, then a quick and humane end, in exchange for what we need.

It would be a much better argument if so many animals weren't reared in appalling conditions, unfortunately.  Battery farms are horrible places, for example.  I think here in the UK we're gradually becoming aware of that, and I can only hope the trend spreads.

[Earthquake Damage]

Milk contains enough B12 to see you through the day. Milk is not meat to me, although some vegans would disagree. B12 does exist as an additive in several products for vegans, but I don't know about the silver spoon bit. In Europe, where I live, these are not particularly expensive.

So is your problem that livestock die or that they suffer?  I doubt cattle raised for milk are treated much, if any, better than cattle raised for meat (and presumably also milk).